Reprisal of an older article

Published on October 8, 2007 By Moderateman In War on Terror

Definition of torture:

2 entries found for torture.
To select an entry, click on it.
torture[1,noun]torture[2,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING

now please do not make me define anguish and agony cause I will........

again I say for the dense..

Making a room 95 degrees is not TORTURE.... its damn uncomfortable.

Playing loud music (90 decibels} is not Torture is just mind numbing

Making a room cold 40 degrees is not TORTURE... it is very uncomfortable.

Making someone stand in place is NOT TORTURE.

Putting a blindfold on someones head is not torture... its scary period.

I am tired of the left twisting my words so the outcome is as they choose../

for the fainthearted I will now list some torture beware your bleeding heart might rupture.

Slamming slivers of bamboo on fire under your toenails is torture

Pulling your tongue out and cutting it off is torture.... Saddam did this on a constant basis. So do the Terrorists we are fighting and worse.

Cutting someone hands off in stages from the fingers upwards is torture... Saddam also did this. We have proof that the Muslim lunatics do this also.

Gassing someone with chemical agents is torture Saddam did this also

Cutting off someones ears is torture Saddam also did this. We have proof the Muslim Terrorists do this too.

Can any of you name one instance in THIS WAR where we did anything approaching the true definition of torture?

Do any of you have proof that America has done anything besides a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors that we have engaged in any of this kind of horrendous behavior?

Comments (Page 6)

Adventure-Dude

on Oct 10, 2007

"oh please Mr. terrorist that hates all things western and not Muslim please please tell us your next plan to kill us?"

You didn't say pretty please so I WILL not crack!

Jythier

on Oct 10, 2007

"Oh all right, just one plot." "Yay, everyone, gather round, Mr. Terrorist is going to tell us a plot!"

"Once upon a time.."

danielost

on Oct 10, 2007

a bottle of 20 year old scotch?!?

no that would be torture. they don't drink.

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 10, 2007

no that would be torture. they don't drink.

Good point. Give me the Scotch, I'll...err...dispose of it!

Moderateman

on Oct 10, 2007

Reply By: Adventure-DudePosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
He was turned over to US authorities, but was a German national, so he was neither a POW or an enemy combatant. If he were a spy, the legal thing would have been to try him in a court of law.

Sodaiho,

I agree with you here. The problem is we only know what NY Times published.

If this actually happened, there was found no connection, then two things should happen: The innocent should be compensated and the guilty should be punished.

Among leading newspapers the N.Y. Times has done more to damage the war effort than any other [paper, leaked more information about what tactics we use, has been the harshest critic of the Bush administration, has been shown time and time again to lie and mislead, why would any one want to use them as a reliable source is beyond me.

Moderateman

on Oct 10, 2007

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
If "we" believed he was a suspected "terrorist" why not arrest him and try him in a court of law?

The 10 cent reason is simple. As he was not arrested in the US, he is not subject to the laws of the US. If indeed he was suspected of being a terrorist, he was captured in a war zone, making himn either a POW (doubtful from the suspects account) or an non uniformed enemy combatant - i.e. a spy. IN the latter case, the "legal" thing to do would have been to shoot him.

But dead men tell no tales, so he could not have been shot, right?

And finally, there is a HUGE misconception about what the role of the Supreme court is (propigated by the democrats looking to legislate from the bench what they cannot pass through congress). They are not there to MAKE law, They are there to determine the rules of the laws on the books. As such, unless there is a procedural error in a lower court ruling, there is nothing they can do. Notice (if you read further), that they did not RULE on his case, only refused to hear it. In other words, they found no procedural errors in any of the lower court rulings.

For years the left has been use to using SCOTUS as their way of legislating things they wanted to have done, now they cannot due to the court being a little more balanced and they are pissed at this.

Moderateman

on Oct 10, 2007

Reply By: lulapilgrimPosted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I will also add that while I do not have a primer on what exactly is and is not torture, I will say that the screams of torture in most of these cases only serve to cheapen the true torture and desensitize people for when the real stuff happens. It is the "Boy who Cried Wolf" syndrome. Yell it enough times when it is not true, and no one is going to listen when it is true.

Doc, as I said before, it comes down to terms..those who govern the culture's language govern the culture.

Try to remember the poor terrorists complaining about someone eating a ham sandwich while interrogating them as 'TORTURE' AND having a female talk to them as torture too!!

Moderateman

on Oct 10, 2007

(Citizen)Adventure-DudeOctober 10, 2007 14:44:16

Oh all right, just one plot." "Yay, everyone, gather round, Mr. Terrorist is going to tell us a plot!"

"Once upon a time.."

pretty please with sugar on top?, Oh I am sorry was I talking to loud?

Jewbu

on Oct 10, 2007

The man in question was not a terrorist. He was an unemployed used car salesman for goodness' sake.

Moderateman, how have I missed your point? You asked for one example. I gave you one example. You attack its source. You talk the talk, hate whiners, but its the right that whines the loudest every time they get shown for the crazy warmongers you are. If you take a look at the blogs here at JU we really could call it a Right Wing Whiner's Club. All ya'll do is take cheap shots at liberals and Democrats.

Wasn't it you who bad-mouthed me because I characatured Fox news some time ago? Its not only the N. Y. Times that has trouble with the Bush administration, its at least two thirds of the United Statres citizenry if we are to believe the polls. Most Americans as I understand it, want us out of this war. Its a few hard heads like yourself that create the real trouble in America. You conservative knuckleheads have ruined our reputation for fairplay, reduced us to a fearbased culture by suggesting there's a terrorist in every friggen corner...hell even little old ladies in wheelchairs are being searched on the chance thay are there to blow up a plane...and you guys go Hooray! You seem to distrust the very thing you profess to hold dear, our government, its citizens, a free press, and our constitution. Give me a break.

Moderateman

on Oct 10, 2007

(Citizen)So Daiho HilbertOctober 10, 2007 18:51:22

wow, chastised to the max, and for good reason, from your point of view anyways, I accept this and will not respond in kind.

I do thank you for pointing out what you see as where I have gone wrong and you are right I did ask for one example, you gave it to me and then I trashed it. apologies for that. You responded in good faith and did not deserve it.

Moderateman

on Oct 10, 2007

How about this then, you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?

kingbee

on Oct 10, 2007

you get three terrorist, you take them up in a helicopter, you ask the oldest one a question, just one, when he refuses to answer you just toss him out of the copter, then land where his mangled body is, show it to the other two then take off again, ask the second oldest a question, if he refuses to answer, you toss him out of the copter wrapped in pigskin, you land, show it to the youngest then take off again, by then I am sure you will get your information, without any torture at all. How does that work for you?

just as an aside, am i correct in recalling you describing this technique and suggesting you had reason to believe it was employed in southeast asia (perhaps as comment on a thread shortly after you first arrived at ju)?

would not all three consider this their ticket to martyrdom and dozens of virgins--pig skin or no pig skin?

Artysim

on Oct 10, 2007

Moderateman, I'm speechless! Well not quite. Congrats on keeping your cool though!

In regards to your next point-

I think this is called a war crime. It's the same tactic that's been employed by many different armies down through the ages to instill fear of death in the vanquished "kill a few of the bastards to show em' who's in charge!!" Usually, people who do this are called bad guys and history tends to take a dim view of them. But to be fair, definitions are important. May I ask what your definition of a terrorist is? If any old Iraqi decides to take up arms against uniformed U.S forces does that automatically make him a terrorist, or is he an insurgent? If he is an insurgent, should he be treated differently from a terrorist? Because if there is no distinction, that would then mean that if the U.S was invaded and you decided to put up resistance to the invading army you would then be a terrorist as well! (in the eyes of the occupying army)

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 10, 2007

May I ask what your definition of a terrorist is? If any old Iraqi decides to take up arms against uniformed U.S forces does that automatically make him a terrorist, or is he an insurgent? If he is an insurgent, should he be treated differently from a terrorist? Because if there is no distinction, that would then mean that if the U.S was invaded and you decided to put up resistance to the invading army you would then be a terrorist as well! (in the eyes of the occupying army)

Excellent response, Arty, and one reason I question our current course of action.

A terrorist is one who deliberately selects and attacks civilian targets for the purpose of causing the population to live in fear. The WTC attacks were terror attacks. The USS Cole, while requiring a response on our part, was not a terror attack any more than was John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. It was guerilla warfare, and falls into a different class of action entirely.

By calling anyone who dares strike at us in military OR civilian capacity (or worse, by calling anyone who dares SPEAK against us) a terrorist, cheapens the word and devalues the lives truly lost at the hands of terrorists.

I'm not saying we shouldn't hold insurgents until the end of hostilities. But I AM saying that an Iraqi defending his tiny patch of sand does not deserve to be lumped in the same class as the militant who blew up a shopping mall!

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 10, 2007

You seem to distrust the very thing you profess to hold dear, our government, its citizens, a free press, and our constitution.

I'm one who feels BOTH sides have sold out our Constitution. It's about time we take it back!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!